Add Selune to acceptable Ranger deities

[evilfox]

Mar 26, 2017 11:41:27 GMT -5 Edge said:

Mar 26, 2017 7:49:25 GMT -5 Garage Trashcan said:

Yeah, I don't know where the whole, "Rangers must worship nature deities," came from, considering on the old forum it was always explicitly stated that they only needed to have any patron deity to benefit from divine spellcasting. The post should be changed to just Druids, as that's the only one that makes canonical sense and actually matches what CD has always had.

Mostly because this isn't true. Yes some were told this (myself included), while others were told rangers always needed to serve a nature deity, and still others that deity didn't matter unless you got to the levels you could use ranger spells, but after that point you needed a naturey patron or you couldn't use those spells.

It doesn't help that WOTC has been extremely inconsistent about this across different books, as this very thread has provided so many examples of. Even more so when adding in non-FR expansions and setting-neutral books that while not necessarily designed for use with the setting contain information and mechanics we do make use of here.

As Arya said, what we ask right now is a bit of patience. We aren't yet going to start telling people to change deity or rebuild out of class. We're trying to bring a unified handle to a question that's been answered several different ways over the server's existence, and as such it's going to take some time.

Not to throw anyone under the bus, but I was told to change my deity for Tani and I did it. I was grumpy and upset but I did it. Then I was told in regards to my second choice deity "currently we don't have Talona supported for rangers" which means I would in fact have to change the deity again. Furthermore Talona is and was at the time on the list of acceptable deities. Now that dm later stated that the list is constantly changing and she meant to say "she's supported currently, but that might be changing (I doubt that though)" Why would the lady of poison even be considered to NOT be on the list? For that matter why would a rule be posted before all this research and information gathering was finalized? What is the point of telling random players that according to pending server law, that they might not have a character anymore?

[Edge]

I'm not going to comment extensively on this as I've heard no less than three different retellings of this incident (this is why rumor mill is bad, kids) and i need to get to work.

What i will say is that i believe - correct me if i'm wrong - that this was prompted by requests for a druids grove token, and that i think is not going to change, even if we decided in the future to scrap all policing of rangers deities; to be part of the druids grove, you need to worship a druid deity, regardless of class.

[evilfox]

The first time I changed it, it was unprovoked. I was told the character wouldn't be playable so I changed the deity. Then days later, the second time, when I asked for the token and was I was told Talona is not supported as a ranger deity and then shameless backpedalling. And while I can appreciate you not wanting to comment on it because of the rumor mill. I can tell you from a first hand experience that what happened to me was wrong and by your own earlier post never should have happened.

[Arya]

So, I am going to say this as not a staff member, but as a player for a moment. Which, staff members are and only should ever be players with privileges. That has always been my philosophy. Take it as you will.

People make mistakes. And if in the case what you say is true (I do not know the details; not my business and I will not pry), that includes staff as much as players. Should we try to minimize them? Sure. But no one is perfect and should only ever be given a firm hand when they make no effort to try being helpful. Truly, though, there is a saying that suggests, as hard as it can be to apply it in practice:

"Be the change you want to be in the world." 

It is on the line of the golden rule of treating others the way you wish to be treated. Even for one wanting accountability, if you want people to be more kind and lenient with you (judging from the tone I am seeing), perhaps it might help to extend that courtesy to others, as well? It is on par with the rule of respect on the server. Also part of being a member of the community, even when it can be hard and frustrating at times when feeling upset. 

When and if people hold honest mistakes against others, especially in the manner where, even in text, the anger and rage is radiating from them in a public 'you should be ashamed/shouldn't have done...' post, it speaks more about them than the people they target. Call me out if I am wrong, I can be a bit tone (and in kind, text) sensitive about these things. 

None of us as players or staff are paid to play. I understand wanting some professionalism and expecting some of it. Just... it is a bit unrealistic to expect others to be perfect all the time. There is also a professional way to provide feedback just as there is to act in general, and in a way that is far less demeaning. Others have demonstrated this very well already in this thread.

This way also tends to get better results.

Just my thoughts. This is really a game, with a community trying to just have fun, for the most part. 

Sincerely,
Arya

[evilfox]

I apologize if my tone seems strong. I merely wanted to point out that this issue has been happening contra to what was being said in this forum. At this point, I'm going to bow out of this conversation because it is off topic and the focus should be on acceptable ranger deities.

[lurkerabove]

If I may share a perspective in offering from else-server:

On a previous server I once played on for a long time, it was in fact acceptable to have a ranger of any faith. This was done to reflect useage of the class for building archetypes by multiclassing. The tradeoff was that unless your patron was a nature deity (any deity that didn't have one of the "nature" or elemental domains), you did not get access to the ranger spell book.

Also, what I see here is that we may have two different considerations playing against each other here - what are acceptable deities for rangers, and what are acceptable deities for the Druid grove.

I see every reason to limit the grove by faith. Actually, I personally don't think the grove should be restricted by class at all. If your barbarian is a servant of Uthgar (nature deity) or your bard serves Mielikki, etc, then you are as qualified to be a protector of the wilds as the Druid or ranger is. That was the policy else-sever when I was running the membership over one of the groves. Whether the decision to limit by class is a server policy or a player run policy on CD, I'm unaware. But I don't want to digress from the thread topic either. Nature deity for the grove, definitely.

As for rangers, imo, it shouldn't be a dire consideration unless the character in question is a majority ranger, or significantly leveled in ranger, because spell casting isn't an issue until 4th level. (Granted, many who use it as a dip class are going to take exactly 4 levels for pre-epic attack count purposes.)

There are deities that are in the above listed exceptions that, while they lack Druid orders, they do have rangers aplenty, and are in fact dieties that offer either nature or elemental domains (Selune's moon domain is still considered a nature domain, Shaundakul has the Air domain, etc) so there is justification for spell ability on their part.

For that occasion that someone may put ranger into their build for that Justiciar of Tyr archetype, or the undead hunter of Kelemvor, or the bounty hunter devoted to Hoar, or the rogue mage hunter of Azuth, then spell ability could be justifiably negated, but the other abilities that define "the rugged individualist of the times" would still apply.

[Theorem of Neutrality]

Lurkerabove makes numerous excellent points.

The only supernatural ability that rangers get access to from a deity is their spellcasting. All the rest of their abilities are extraordinary, including their animal companion (the same goes for druids). With this in mind, it makes sense that someone can be trained to be a ranger without necessarily belonging to the requisite faith.

It needs to be understood that rangers began as specialty priests of Mieliekki, Gwaeron Windstrom and Shaundakul (much as druids were specialty priests of Silvanus). That is where the concept of rangers requiring a nature deity to function comes from.

With the way 3.5 works, however, the necessity isn't present. Rangers are presented less as a specific kind of clergy and more as a hunter/pathfinder archetype.

[Vincent07]

After some thought and discussion, we have decided to amend the previous ruling change regarding Rangers.

Post